Dzis Obama zamknal nastepna konferencje bo tam bylam
.....
All these trips to Hawai are phony. Obama behavior is not xcpnsistant
with growing up in USA at all.

IF his other names are true, than my supecious that my supervisor was
hinting that SONIA NAZI DOG
is ....   and moreover obama now wants to be her son.

nothing of his manipulations now holds water as any legal reason to
use my signitures.

but why? if teh lie was to go through? Still tries to kill me and than
all will claim  that I was tahtb Sonia.
I have never used Sonia ( Zosia, Sofia)  name; Einstein himself used
( as Z Kowalewska -
still on the walls of the Jaswin - Physics Building at OPrinceton Uni,
easy identifriable)
 and his second  wife that he has diminished like many women.


Obama weas crearly pro,oted by Einstein. But who is E. in Russia?

Where exactly this crime lead to now?

.....

This was just released.





EVERY "LAW" OBAMA SIGNS BRINGS US CLOSER TO...




By: Devvy
June 22, 2009
Š 2009 - NewsWithViews.com

Removing this usurper from office. How, you ask?

Those not walking around in a self induced coma are aware of the 38
lawsuits regarding Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry
Obama aka Barack Dunham aka Barry Dunham, over his false citizenship
claims. Double digit millions of Americans now know the legal facts or
at least are questioning why Obama/Soetoro won't release his long form
birth certificate. Of course, that isn't the core issue, but millions
of us know there is something wrong or Obama/Soetoro would have
released it by now, as well as his college transcripts as have other
candidates and presidents.

Despite the bald faced lies by the compromised media, not a single
case to date has been heard on merit or legal arguments..

Obama recently crowed to an audience of his cult followers and fellow
Marxists:

"Why bother hanging out with celebrities when I can spend time with
the people who made me one?" Obama asked the crowd of black tie
journalists and media personalities gathered at the Washington
Convention Center. "I know where my bread is buttered." And: "I have
to admit though, it wasn't easy coming up with fresh material for this
dinner," Obama said. "A few nights ago, I was up tossing and turning
trying to figure out exactly what to say. Finally, when I couldn't get
back to sleep, I rolled over and asked Brian Williams what he
thought."

Obama/Soetoro thinks that's funny. It is the compromised media that
helped "elect" this usurper and continues the black out regarding his
real citizenship status. All these cable network anchors and reporters
for the MSM are fake reporters and journalists. They have shamed their
profession, and as Joseph Pulitzer said, "A cynical, mercenary,
demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself."

There currently is one case I need to mention because of statements by
the federal judge and that is Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo and of of his clients (plaintiff), Charles
Kerchner, were guests on my radio show, June 10, 2009. While the
courts have played fast and loose with the law because they are
gutless cowards, it appears, at least at this point in time, that U.S.
Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, may be an individual who does respect
the U.S. Constitution and the absolute right of we the people to
challenge any usurper to public office. Read this because it's
important:

"On page two the Judge writes, "In their complaint Plaintiffs assert
violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants
have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural
born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President
of the United States." Then on page four the Judge writes,
"Plaintiffs' Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that
the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their
interests."

"The Judge points out that the Department of Justice still has not
decided who is going to represent whom for the seven defendants in the
case. Later he then writes, "The Court is confident that after all the
attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that
the case will proceed expeditiously." The Judge of course noted that
we opposed the extension. And previously on page two, the Judge noted,
"The Court has also received numerous letters from non-parties
opposing Defendants' motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25]."

Let me go back for a moment to one of the staples used by Obama/
Soetoro supporters who care absolutely nothing for the supreme law of
the land - the gimmee crowd who have their hands out to receive the
fruits of your labor Obama/Soetoro promised to steal for votes:
Standing for plaintiffs. Dr. Edwin Vieira addressed this in one of his
past columns:

"In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents
the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge
complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by
invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who
underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly
contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is
exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s
eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters
a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have
any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for
election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a
natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to
vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that
“Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to
vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a
constitutional duty to vote against him.

"The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has
actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but
instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing”
to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

....regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too
generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A]
candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does
not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the
theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change
as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from
the primaries to the general election.

"This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

"First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall
extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg's suit plainly
“aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a
critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his
suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for
whether a litigant's claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]”
comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may
proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a
term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of
the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial
decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test
for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

"True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the
judiciary's so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which
licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional
rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from
those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution,
and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of
“standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole
cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s]
or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)
—in the face of the Constitution's explicit limitation on official
immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does
require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because
the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible
men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were
adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if
the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not
to endanger America's constitutional form of government. Which is
precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of
Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office,
not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General
Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as
explained below).

"Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—
namely, that Berg's “grievance remains too generalized to establish
the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or
potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face."

I'll take Dr. Edwin Vieira's credentials over some hack from ABC or
the NY Times any day of the week. As to the legal arguments, a new and
comprehensive piece is now posted using some of Leo Donofrio's legal
research and highly recommended by Leo. Please click here to read the
"primer" on the eligibility issue.

In the meantime

"The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators
bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The
United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any
statue must be in agreement with it to be valid. It is impossible for
both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must
prevail over the other. The Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, (2nd
ed., Section 256), states:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statue, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so
branding it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid
law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law
of the land, it is superseded thereby." Stephen K. Huber, Professor of
Law, University of Houston

This usurper president is by far and and away the most aggressive
destroyer ever to sit in the White House. A devout Marxist, Obama/
Soetoro (with the blessing of his co conspirators in Congress) is
ripping this country apart, shredding what's left of the Constitution,
destroying the free market, and in his narcissistic arrogance, thinks
he can get away with it.

Each time this usurper signs another piece of unconstitutional
legislation passed by a corrupt body of law breakers (Congress), we
get closer to forcing the issue of his dual citizenship. Let me quote
Dr. Edwin Vieira again on this very issue:

"Assume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or
only an obviously tainted inquiry takes place at the stage of counting
the Electors’ votes. Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all.
For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing”
to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand
relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical
necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to
enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial
legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign—such
as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to
which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they “cling.”

"For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that
reinstates the Clinton “assault-weapons ban” (or some equally
obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the
Second Amendment), the defendant will undeniably have “standing” to
challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such
a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which * * * passed the
House of Representatives and the Senate” was never “presented to the
President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a
Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being
constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains
thereafter nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2
and Article II, Section 1, 4]"

Let me give you a few hypotheticals. The Pedophile Protection Act has
been passed by an immoral group of craven individuals in the U.S.
House of Representatives. It's now sitting in the senate and YOU need
to phone your senator TODAY. Why? "This Thursday, Senate Judiciary
Republicans could well prove to be the Achilles heel of hate bill
opposition." The usual gutless Republicans. This so called "hate
crimes" bill is more unconstitutional trash, but if passed by the
senate, there is no question the usurper president will sign it.

Let's say that immediately following Obama/Soetoro signing this bill
into law, dozens of ministers and preachers exercise their God given
First Amendment right to practice their religion by warning their
congregations that sexual deviants are after your children in the
schools. By warning their faithful that God condemns sodomites and
lesbians and that they should reject the agenda of the sexual
deviants. The vile, corrupt, Eric Holder, Attorney General of these
united States of America, decides to charge all of them with a "hate
crime" under the PPA.

Obama/Soetoro signs an unconstitutional "health care reform" law that
will force Americans to buy health insurance. That was tried the first
time with social security and it didn't work, which is why people must
apply for an SSN. A social security number is not automatically issued
to anyone because there is no law that requires any American to obtain
an SSN to live or work in the U.S. A thousand Americans who refuse to
buy health insurance are charged or fined under this new "law" Obama/
Soetoro has signed.

How about the grotesque HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.
You an bet that hundreds of individuals and small farmers will violate
this draconian legislation and will be charged.

Comrade Obama/Soetoro signs some sort of executive order for mandatory
flu vaccinations for all Americans - including your child: Government
Readies Schools As Mass Vaccination Clinics. Of course, tens of
millions of us will refuse and will file lawsuits immediately based on
the fact that Obama/Soetoro has no legal authority as an usurper to
issue an EO.

These are just a small sample where the defendants should use Obama/
Soetoro's ineligibility as a defense in my humble opinion. As Obama/
Soetoro is an usurper and never had any legal right to run for
president, much less be elected (with the help of ACORN and massive
vote fraud), any legislation he signs into law is null and void. The
same applies to executive orders. Be sure to send your Congress
critters a short letter explaining this and that the lawsuits WILL
flood the courts the minute the ink is dry. Use a real letter and not
email. Every member of Congress received hundreds of thousands of
emails a month. All you'll get is a form reply. A real snail mail
letter is something they can't ignore.

While I am not a lawyer, I would think this also applies to any and
all unconstitutional legislation Obama/Soetoro signs that damages
banks (who refused the grand larceny known as "bail outs"), auto
dealerships, as well as any decisions by his "Czar's." If it were my
livelihood affected, I would pursue a lawsuit with as many co
plaintiffs as I could find and sue under that one narrow issue: Obama
was a British citizen at the time of his birth and we can prove it.

What else can do you? Please note in Mario's statement above that the
judge referenced, "The Court has also received numerous letters from
non-parties opposing Defendants' motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23,
24, 25]." This means that ordinary Americans like you and me have, on
their own, sent letters to the court asking the judge to force the
defendants to answer. The defendants (Obama, Pelosi, et al) are not
above the law and this is a constitutional crisis. McCain was also
clearly ineligible to run so this isn't a game of favorites, it's
about the law.

I hope you will take a few minutes to pen a short, polite letter to
Judge Schneider. Let him know that this fraud has gone on long enough
and why would Obama/Soetoro spend more than $940,000 to keep his long
form birth certificate hidden as well as all his college records? Let
him know the longer this goes on, the worst it will be for our
republic because there will be lawsuits filed over legislation Obama
signs into law. Send your letters to:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider
United States Courthouse
400 Cooper Street
Camden NJ 08102-1570